The FBI can keep individuals on a terrorism watch list even if they have been acquitted of terrorism-related offenses or the charges are dismissed, The New York Times reports.

An FBI memo from December 2010, released under a Freedom of Information Act request, sheds new light on the agency’s legal standard for adding and removing individuals from the list.

“If an individual is acquitted or charges are dismissed for a crime related to terrorism, the individual must still meet the reasonable suspicion standard in order to remain on, or be subsequently nominated to, the terrorist watch list,” the memo reads.

Therefore, names can remain on the list even after a court acquits a person or drops charges in a specific case, so long as the FBI or other federal agencies have “reasonable suspicion” that he or she is connected to terrorism.

The terrorism watch list currently has about 420,000 names, including about 8,000 Americans. About 16,000 people, including about 500 Americans, are barred from flying. Inclusion on the list can keep people off of planes, block noncitizens from entering the country and subject them to more extensive searching and interrogation at border crossings, airports and traffic stops.

The list is shared with federal agencies responsible for checking people boarding planes, crossing the border and applying for visas. Local police officers also have access to the list during traffic stops. But local police are instructed never to tell suspects that they might be on the watch list, and procedures don’t allow people to be notified of their inclusion on it.

If a person does find out about his or her inclusion on the terrorism watch list, there is no method for challenging suspicions or requesting removal from the list.

Privacy advocates such as the Electronic Privacy Information Center, which made the FOIA request and provided it to The New York Times, balked at the newly released information.

“In the United States, you are supposed to be assumed innocent. But on the watch list, you may be assumed guilty, even after the court dismisses your case,” Ginger McCall, a counsel at the Electronic Privacy Information Center, told the Times.

Supporters of the rule argue that the standard of proof necessary to justify additional scrutiny and questioning is necessarily lower than the standard of proof necessary to convict a person of a criminal offense.